System for policing junk e-mail messages

ABSTRACT

A system for policying an unsolicited e-mail communication. The system has a plurality of clients, each coupled together using a wide area network of computers, such as the Internet or an internet. Each of the clients is adapted to send an indication of an unsolicited e-mail message through an e-mail device for a display. The system also has a policying server coupled to each of the plurality of clients through the wide area network of computers. The policying server is adapted to receive the indication from at least one of the clients. The e-mail device comprises an SPAM icon on the display. The SPAM icon is adapted to send the indication from the client to the policying server.

CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.60/093,120 filed Jul. 15, 1998, hereby incorporated for all purposes.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains materialwhich is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has noobjection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent documentor the patent disclosure as it appears in the Patent and TrademarkOffice patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyrightrights whatsoever.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to telecommunication techniques.More particularly, the present invention provides a novel technique,including computer codes, to reduce unwanted e-mail messages from apersonal computer, workstation, or the like. These unwanted e-mailmessages that were unsolicited are commonly referred to as “SPAM.” SPAMincludes junk mail or junk e-mail messages including get-rich-quickschemes, advertisements, adult web site information, donation requests,political campaign information, and the like.

A variety of techniques have been used to transmit written messages fromone geographic location to another. In the early days, people ormessengers were the sole means used to carry written information fromone person to another person. Although effective and still used today,messengers were limited by their physical abilities. That is, somemessengers could not travel over rough terrain such as rocks, jungles,and other landscapes. Large bodies of water were also difficult tocross. Additionally, messengers generally could not travel over longdistances in a short period of time. A human messenger could only travela few miles or tens of miles during a typical day.

Accordingly, messengers were replaced, at least in part, by carrierpigeons. More particularly, carrier pigeons were used to move smallpieces of papers having written information thereon from one geographiclocation to another. Carrier pigeons were quite efficient in someapplications but could not generally travel over substantial distances.Accordingly, a relay of ponies and human riders was used for longdistance travel across the North American continent. This relay ofponies was called the “Pony Express.” The Pony Express carried writtencommunication in the form of mail on leather pouches carried on therelay of ponies across the United States. Although all of thesetechniques were somewhat effective, they were often costly, unreliable,and difficult to achieve.

In the modern day world, a combination of transportation techniques areused in the postal system. These techniques include, among others, humancarriers (e.g., mailmen), motorized vehicles such as cars or trucks, andairplanes, jets, and the like to physically transport mail throughoutthe United States. Conventional postal systems are often reliable andcost efficient. They are so efficient that they are often subject tomany undesirable influences. One of these influences is the routinetransmission of unsolicited advertisements, information, and the like tomany households across the United States. On any typical day, an averagehousehold receives at least one, if not more than one, unsolicitedadvertisement. As merely an example, the advertisement can be for carpetcleaning, credit cards, and other goods or services that are routinelysent by companies in an attempt to secure a purchase from the household.In many cases, these unsolicited advertisements often burden the postalsystem, although the advertisers at least pay for the service.Additionally, households are burdened by the advertisements, which arethrown away. These unsolicited advertisements are also termed as “JunkMail.”

Unfortunately, junk mail is not limited to use in only the conventionalpostal systems. In many wide area computer networking applications, junkmail is commonly sent to users in large groups, often thousands orperhaps millions of users. For instance, a user of a well known widearea network of computers, which is known as the “Internet,” oftenreceives numerous lines of junk mail, which has been coined as SPAM! Infact, SPAM refers to such unsolicited advertisements that come to theuser by way of electronic mail, also known as “e-mail.” The senders ofSPAM are often termed “spammers”. Unlike regular mail advertisers,spammers do not pay for the privilege to send SPAM to recipients e-mailboxes.

SPAM has become a significant problem because the volume of SPAM islarge. As a courtesy, and under the threat of possible legislationrestricting SPAM, many distributors of SPAM now send SPAM withinstructions to the recipients of the SPAM on how to be removed from theSPAM distribution list. In most cases, however, e-mail messages often donot include such instructions on how to remove a recipient from a junke-mail distribution list.

In the cases where instructions are provided, many drawbacks exist. Asmerely an example, some of the ways to be removed from the mailing listsis time consuming to the recipient. Additionally, there are simply nostandards on how recipients may be removed from such mailing lists.Furthermore, the techniques that are available to the recipient oftenrequire the recipient to perform time consuming tasks, such as sending areply e-mail to the junk e-mail message and specifically typing arequest to be removed from the mailing list, forwarding the e-mailmessage to another e-mail address and typing a request with specifiedtext requesting removal, connecting to a particular web site andfollowing instructions for removal (incidentally, benefiting the SPAMweb site by providing an advertising “hit” for the web site), and thelike.

Filters have also been used or proposed to remove junk e-mail messagesfrom a recipients e-mail. In fact, various programs have been developedin an attempt to filter-out junk e-mail messages from in boxes. Suchprograms appear to focus upon the e-mail address, host source, theformat of the message, the content, and the like. Typically suchprograms are programmed by the user to detect junk e-mail, and toautomatically delete them so the user is not bothered by them, orautomatically put into a junk folder. A drawback to such programs isthat the user is forced to determine the criteria for filtering, acomplicated task for the average user. Another drawback to such programsis that the filters defined by the user, or pre-set may filter-outlegitimate bulk e-mail messages that are of interest to the user, forexample, e-mail messages from special interest groups, product recalland product warning notices, valuable product promotions from legitimatebusinesses, complementary upgrade notices and bug patches for softwareprograms, freebees, and the like.

One company developing products to enhance the use of filteringtechniques has been Bright Light Technologies in San Francisco. TheBright Light system appears to disclose providing a central clearinghouse of identified SPAM messages. Bright Light appears to use the SPAMdata to form data files which are downloaded to Bright Lightsubscribers. The subscribers utilize the data files to create filterswithin their e-mail programs that then filter-out SPAM messages.

Bright Light appears to gather SPAM data by setting up dummy or “probe”e-mail accounts with e-mail providers, for example, Juno.com,Excite.com, or the like. When these dummy accounts receive e-mailmessages, Bright Light appear to automatically or manually determinewhether the e-mail is SPAM. If the e-mail message is determined to beSPAM, characteristics of the e-mail message, such as sender and thesubject text appear to be entered into the SPAM data file.

One drawback with the current Bright Light technique is that automaticdetermination of SPAM may require a high level of AI programming andprogramming resources. Another drawback is that manual determination ofSPAM may require round-the clock hiring of personnel and personnelresources.

Yet another drawback with the current Bright Light technique is that useof such dummy or probe e-mail accounts are passive do not receive SPAMas would active e-mail accounts. It is well known that electronic massmarketers use a variety of techniques for obtaining e-mail address liststhan just who has an e-mail account. For example, marketers obtaine-mail address from user posts on various Internet sites such as newsgroup sites, chat room sites, or directory services sites, message boardsites, mailing lists, and identifying “mailto” address links provided onweb pages. Using these and other similar methods, electronic massmarketers may effectively obtain large numbers of mailing addresses,which become targets for their advertisements and other unsolicitedmessages. Mere passive accounts would thus not have the same exposure tosuch mass marketers, as would e-mail accounts of real live web users. Asa result, a reduced number of SPAM e-mail messages may be sent to suchdummy or probe accounts.

From the above, it is seen that an improved technique for removing andpreventing repeat junk e-mail messages is highly desired.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to the present invention, a technique for removing junk e-mailmessages from a system of computers over a wide area network isprovided. In an exemplary embodiment, the present invention provides atechnique for easily viewing and removing SPAM without opening it. Thetechnique can permanently remove the SPAM in some embodiments. Thetechnique also provides for enforcement and reporting of SPAM to SPAMpolicing servers.

In a specific embodiment, the present invention provides a system forpolicying an unsolicited e-mail communication. The system has aplurality of clients, each coupled together using a wide area network ofcomputers, such as the Internet or an internet. Each of the clients isadapted to send an indication of an unsolicited e-mail message (orforward the e-mail message) through an e-mail device for a display. Thesystem also has a policying server coupled to each of the plurality ofclients through the wide area network of computers. The policying serveris adapted to receive the indication from at least one of the clients.The e-mail device comprises an SPAM icon on the display. The SPAM iconis adapted to send the indication from the client to the policyingserver.

Numerous advantages are achieved by way of the present invention overconventional techniques. As merely an example, the present inventionprovides an easy to use method to remove unwanted or unsolicited e-mailmessages. In some embodiments, the present invention is relatively easyto implement using pre-existing computer software. The present inventionalso is time efficient and relatively cost efficient. The computer codesalso allows a user to permanently remove unwanted e-mail messages from adistribution list. Depending upon the embodiment, one or more of theadvantages are achieved. These and other advantages are describedthroughout the present specification, and more particularly below.

These and other embodiments of the present invention, as well as itsadvantages and features are described in more detail in conjunction withthe text below and attached

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of an e-mail system according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of a display according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3-5 are simplified user interfaces according to embodiments of thepresent invention;

FIGS. 6-9 are simplified flow diagrams according to embodiments of thepresent invention; and

FIGS. 10-11 are simplified diagrams according to other embodiments ofthe present invention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS I. System Hardware

FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of an e-mail system 100 accordingto an embodiment of the present invention. This diagram is merely anillustration and should not limit the scope of the claims herein. One ofordinary skill in the art would recognize other variations,modifications, and alternatives. Among other features, the system 100 isa wide area network of computers such as, for example, the Internet. Thenetwork of computers includes workstations or computer terminals 103,which can be IBM compatible personal computers (i.e., PCs),workstations, network computers (i.e., NCs), remote computing devices,television sets, set-top boxes or other computer-like devices. Thesecomputers are coupled through lines 105 to the Internet 101, whichincludes a variety of servers and other computers. As merely an example,one of the servers is shown as server 107.

Server 107 can be any suitable server that distributes unsolicitedadvertisements such as junk mail. Server 107 is coupled to the Internetthrough line 109, which can be through an internet service provider,which is commonly known as an ISP. Server 107 often includes sufficientmemory to store information such as advertisements and the like. Thememory can also store an e-mail distribution list. The memory can bebased on a hard drive, a floppy drive, tape, or other storage media. Ofcourse, the type of memory used depends upon the application.

The e-mail distribution list can include e-mail addresses to one of aplurality of computers 103A, 103B, 103C, and 103D, which can correspondto users. The e-mail distribution list is often compiled from othere-mail distribution lists that are often accumulated from other serversor even purchased. The e-mail distribution list can also be formed byadding the e-mail addresses of users of selected sites. E-maildistribution lists can often range in hundreds, thousands, or evenmillions of users. As merely an example, a typical e-mail distributionlist is often about thousands or even millions of e-mail names andgreater. Of course, the type of e-mail distribution list depends uponthe application.

Each of these computers can be at a user site such as a home, corporateaddress, or remote location. Periodically, each of these computersreceives an unsolicited e-mail message such as an advertisement fromserver 107 or a plurality of servers. Literally hundreds, thousands, oreven millions of unsolicited e-mail messages can be sent to one or moreof the computers by way of the Internet from one or more servers. Giventhe efficiency of the e-mail system of the Internet, the user of thecomputer can receive many e-mail messages from a large number ofservers. These servers can send desirable advertisements as well as manyundesirable advertisements. As merely an example, the advertisement canbe for a car, a book, or other consumer products. Additionally, theadvertisement can be for “sensitive material” such as an adult Web Siteor other materials. The present invention provides a technique to removethese unwanted e-mail messages in an efficient way. Before discussingdetails of the present invention, details of a computer according to thepresent invention are shown by way of FIG. 2 below.

FIG. 2 is a simplified block diagram of a system 200, according to anembodiment of the present invention. This diagram is merely anillustration and should not limit the scope of the claims herein. Thesystem 200 includes a monitor 210, a computing system 220, a user inputdevice 230, a network interface 240, and a keyboard 250. Computingsystem 220 preferably includes familiar components such as a processor260, and memory storage devices, such as a random access memory (RAM)270, a fixed disk drive 280, and a system bus 290 interconnecting theabove components. User input device 230 may include a mouse, atrackball, a keyboard, a keypad, a joystick, a digitizing tablet, awireless controller, a microphone, or other input devices.

RAM 270 and fixed disk drive 280 are mere examples of tangible media forstorage of computer programs, e-mail messages, audio and/or video data,and code implementing embodiments of the present invention. Other typesof tangible media include SRAM, floppy disks, optical storage media suchas CD-ROMs and bar codes, semiconductor memories such as flash memories,stick memories read-only-memories (ROMs), ASICs, battery-backed volatilememories, and the like.

Network interface 240 may be any type of interface to a computernetwork. For example network interface 240 may be a cable/DSL/telephonemodem, an Ethernet or fast Ethernet interface, a LocalTalk connection,or the like. As disclosed above, the computer network may be any type ofnetwork such as the Internet, an Intranet, an IPX network, privatetunnel, local area network (LAN), WAN, and the like.

In a preferred embodiment, computing system 220 includes amicroprocessor, such as a PentiumIII from Intel Corporation, a K-7processor from Advanced Microdevices, or the like running Windows98™operating system from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., BeOS,LINUX, or the like.

The embodiment may include an electronic mail (e-mail) clientapplication, such as Netscape Messenger, GroupWise, Eudora, MicrosoftOutlook, Pegasus Mail, or another typical e-mail program for reading andmanaging e-mail. The embodiment may also utilize web-based e-mailproviders, such as Hotmail, Yahoo!, Excite, or the like;subscriber-based e-mail providers, such as America On Line (AOL),Compuserve, Prodigy, Microsoft Network (MSN) or the like. Still otherembodiments may run with existing e-mail filtering software, such asSpam Wall from Bright Light, and the like.

Many other systems, such as MacOS™ from Apple Corporation, running uponG3 based microprocessors, or Solaris™ from Sun Microsystems or UNIXrunning upon a SPARCstation, and the like can also be used.

The system above discloses examples of configurations that embody thepresent invention. It will be readily apparent to one of ordinary skillin the art that many system types, configurations, and combinations ofthe above devices are suitable for use in light of the presentdisclosure. Of course, the types of system elements used depend highlyupon the application.

In one embodiment of the present invention, a text parsing routine canbe implemented and included. In such an embodiment, the text parsingroutine automatically parses the junk e-mail message and determines thespecified method for removal from the mailing list. For example, thetext parsing routine can determine that a junk e-mail message should be“replied to” with the text “remove”, “unsubscribe”, or the like in thesubject line, in the body of the e-mail message, and the like. Asanother example, the text parsing routine can determine that a junke-mail message should be forwarded to a specified e-mail address, againwith special text such as “delete”, “please remove”, and the likeincluded therein. As merely another example, the routine can determinethat a specific web site should be contacted using a web browser andspecific acts performed such as clicking on a button on the web site.Other types of actions are contemplated in alternative embodiments ofthe present invention and can depend upon the type of removalinstructions specified by the junk e-mail message.

In one embodiment, as will be described below, when the user clicks uponthe SPAM icon, the junk e-mail message is not only replied to using theuser's e-mail program, but is also deleted or purged from the user's inbox. The e-mail message may also be forwarded to a centralized clearinghouse of SPAM messages, called a SPAM policing server or policingserver. Thus with a single click of the remove icon, a request forremoval from the e-mail mailing list is generated and the message isdeleted. In some embodiments, the e-mail message is transferred totrash.

In another embodiment, when a junk e-mail has been removed by selectingthe SPAM command or by clicking on the SPAM icon, a log is maintained ofthe incoming junk e-mail message, the source of the junk e-mail message,the product advertised in the e-mail message, or the like. Further, alog is maintained as to when the reply e-mail, to whom the reply e-mailis sent to, actions taken, or the like. Such logs are valuable as totracking junk e-mails and to demonstrate whether the requests forremoval have been respected. If a junk e-mail source repeatedly ignoresremoval requests, the logs may provide grounds for ISPs to terminatejunk e-mail sender's accounts, may provide evidence to governmentalauthorities, and the like. In still another embodiment, the logs may beforwarded to the policing server for further action.

In light of the disclosed embodiments, enhancements to the presentinvention are envisioned. For example, it is envisioned that users willbe able to define custom actions and assign such actions to custom iconsfor display on the e-mail system. Some examples of custom userinterfaces are shown below.

II. User Interfaces

FIG. 3-5 are simplified user interfaces according to embodiments of thepresent invention. These diagrams are merely illustrations and shouldnot limit the scope of the claims herein. One of ordinary skill in theart would recognize other variations, modifications, and alternatives.As merely an example, FIG. 3 shows a graphical user interface 300 for ane-mail system according to an embodiment of the present invention. Thegraphical user interface 300 is one of many, if not the first, windowfor the e-mail system. The user interface includes a variety of featuressuch as a tool bar 307 that has at least features directed to File,Edit, View, Send, Tools, Window, and Help prompts.

Additionally, the interface includes an in-box 301, an out-box 303, anda trash can 305. As shown, the in-box, out-box, and trash can beaccessed by way of a mouse cursor positioned over a respective iconwhich allows entry. The e-mail also has a main menu 309, and a lowergroup of icons for accessing a calendar 311, a send mail program 313, aschedule program 315, a task program 317, a note program 319, and aphone message program 321. Details of these particular features can befound in one of many conventional e-mail systems such as, for example,GroupWise by Novell as well as other e-mail systems.

The present invention allows for easy viewing and removal of junk e-mailmessages or SPAM by first entering the in-box 301. The in-box is enteredby clicking a cursor by way of a mouse onto the in-box icon. Once thein-box is accessed, a graphical user interface such as the one 400 shownin FIG. 4 is displayed. The in-box user interface includes a variety ofelements such as a root directory 403, which is in the name of “Stephen”for example. The root directory includes a variety of sub-directoriessuch as “friend” for example. As shown, the friend directory ishighlighted by way of an outline. The friend directory is also open, asshown by the opened file folder. The friend directory receives a varietyof e-mail messages which are sent to the main directory or directly tothe friend directory. As shown, the e-mail messages come from “real”friends of the user or receiver such as the names listed, including RosaS. Kim, Diane H. Elzingre, and others. Additionally, the frienddirectory includes junk mail, non-solicited mail, or SPAM, as shown bythe line item corresponding to “What's up” 407, which is fromTridoc2020@aol.com. The SPAM has not been opened but can be easilyidentified by the user or recipient by the unknown e-mail name andmessage.

In the present embodiment, the user can remove the SPAM by simplyclicking on the “NO SPAM!” icon 405, which is disposed around theperiphery of the graphical user interface. The periphery of thegraphical user space is outside of the region for the main text or bodyof the e-mail message. In some embodiments, the periphery of thegraphical user interface is a portion of a tool bar, for example, whichis easy to access but substantially out of the way of the text. In stillanother embodiment, the user may have the option to select a “NO SPAM”function by right-clicking upon the e-mail message. Here, the icon isdisplayed simultaneously with the many lines of e-mail messages,including titles and senders. The NO SPAM button removes the e-mailmessage or disposes the e-mail message into the trash.

In the present embodiment, the NO SPAM button also sends a reply to thesender, which is Tridoc2020@aol.com. The reply sends a message such as a“remove” term or similar term or terms which indicates that the receiverof the SPAM or Stephen in the present example would like to be removedfrom the spammer's distribution list. Other forms of requests areenvisioned such as entering “remove” or similar term on a subject line,or in a body of an e-mail message, or the like. In this embodiment, ane-mail message may also be sent to a SPAM policing server to indicatethe receipt of a SPAM by the recipient.

By way of the present user interface, the SPAM is removed without evenopening it. The present user interface is easy to use, by way of asimple position and click, and permanently removes the receivers namefrom the SPAM distribution list. Accordingly, the receiver will notreceive SPAM from the SPAM mailing list of Tridoc2020@aol.com, as longas the user's name is permanently removed from the distribution list.

In an alternative embodiment, the receiver of SPAM reads the SPAMmessage before removing it by way of a novel graphical user interface500 or window shown in FIG. 5. This graphical user interface includes avariety of features such as a tool bar 503, sender field 505, receiverfield 507, subject line 509, and e-mail message 511, which is SPAM. Theinterface also includes icons for closing the window 513, replying tothe sender 514, forwarding the e-mail 515, information 517, deleting thee-mail 519, and others. The interface also includes an icon labeled “NOSPAM!” for permanently removing the SPAM.

The NO SPAM! button removes the e-mail message or disposes the e-mailmessage into the trash. The NO SPAM! button also sends a reply to thesender, which is meesaocai2@earthlink.net 501. The reply may send amessage such as a remove term which indicates that the receiver of theSPAM or Stephen would like to be removed from the spammer's distributionlist using meesaocai2@earthlink.net. In this embodiment, an e-mailmessage may also be sent to a SPAM policing server to indicate thereceipt of a SPAM by the recipient.

By way of the present user interface, the SPAM is removed after openingit. The present user interface is easy to use, by way of a simpleposition and click, and permanently removes the receivers name from theSPAM distribution list. In another embodiment, the user may have theoption to select a “NO SPAM” function by right-clicking upon the e-mailmessage. Accordingly, the receiver will not receive SPAM from the SPAMmailing list of meesaocai2@earthlink.net 501, if the spammer permanentlyremoves the receives name from the distribution list, and if the SPAMpolice server updates its filter data files.

Although the above embodiments are shown by way of specific userinterfaces, the present invention is much broader. In particular, thepresent invention can be applied to other e-mail systems and other typesof interfaces. The invention can also be added to pre-existing systemswithout significant limitations or the like. The invention is shown, inpart, by the SPAM! icon, but is not limited. The present inventionmerely provides an easy to use technique for removing SPAM, removing theuser's name of a spammer's e-mail distribution list, and for reportingthe SPAM to a SPAM policing server. Details with regard to specificmethods according to embodiments of the present invention are shownbelow.

III. Present Methods

FIGS. 6-9 are simplified flow diagrams according to embodiments of thepresent invention. These diagrams are merely illustrations and shouldnot limit the scope of the claims herein. One of ordinary skill in theart would recognize other variations, modifications, and alternatives.

In one embodiment, the process 600 begins with start 601, as shown inFIG. 6. Among other processes, a user of the computer may perform avariety of operations. These operations include word processing, spreadsheets, and others. The user also checks his/or e-mail box (step 603).In the present embodiment, this may include running an e-mail clientprogram, accessing a web-based e-mail page, opening a subscriptione-mail account, or the like.

Next, the user selects one of many functions that are available one-mail. In some embodiments, the e-mail has an in-box and an out-box. Ina preferred embodiment, the user opens or enters the in-box, step 605.In particular, the user positions a cursor over an icon and clicks onthe icon. The icon opens the in-box. Alternatively, the user uses a “hotkey” to open the in-box. Other techniques can also be used to open thein-box.

Once the in-box is opened. The user typically views the pending e-mailsby sender and subject. In most embodiments, the user views (step 607)lines of e-mails that have been sent to the user e-mail address. Thelines of e-mail contain both legitimate e-mail messages from friends,family, and business. Other e-mail messages include unsolicitedadvertisements, junk mail, and the like, which are referred herein asSPAM. The user opens desired e-mail messages (step 609) and disposes ofthem based. For example, the user can delete the e-mail messages,archive the messages, forward the messages, reply to the messages, orperform other functions.

Further, based upon the subject and/or the sender, the user maydetermine that the e-mail message is SPAM, and “remove” the SPAM (step611) before even opening it. In a specific embodiment, the SPAM isremoved. Depending upon the embodiment, the SPAM can be removed by wayof a variety of ways, as will be described below. The process ends atstep 613, which is STOP.

In a specific embodiment, the present invention provides a process forremoving SPAM, as shown by the flow diagram 611 of FIG. 7. After theuser selects the SPAM, the user positions a cursor in front of an icon717, which can be a NO SPAM, SPAM, remove icon or the like such as theones shown above. The user then clicks the icon (step 719), which beginsa process to remove the SPAM from the user's in-box, removes the user'sname from an e-mail distribution list, reports the SPAM to a SPAMpolicing server, as well as other functions. In particular, the processgenerates (step 721) an e-mail reply to the spammer or distributor ofthe e-mail with a remove request. The e-mail reply is transmitted (step723) to the sender via the wide area network of computers or Internet.By way of the present process, the user can click onto an icon to removethe SPAM, send a remove reply to the sender to permanently remove thename of the user from a junk mail e-mail distribution list, and reportthe SPAM.

Once the spammer or sender receives the remove reply message (step 729)via the wide area network of computers or Internet. The sender generallyreceives such remove reply via e-mail message or other technique. Thesender then removes (step 731) the name of the user or recipient fromthe e-mail distribution list or the like from memory in a server, forexample. This occurs manually or automatically according to a specificprocess.

In this embodiment, once the user name is removed, an acknowledgmentmessage (step 733) can be sent to the user by way of e-mail. The e-mailmessage traverses through the wide area network of computers or Internetand ends up in the users e-mail box. Here, the user receives (step 735)the acknowledgment which can be a “ACKNOWLEDGE REMOVE” language or otherinformation. The present process then stops, step 737.

An alternative embodiment is shown by FIG. 8. The process begins withstart 801, as shown in FIG. 8. Among other processes, a user of thecomputer may perform a variety of operations. These operations includeword processing, spread sheets, and others. The user also checks his/ore-mail (step 803). In the present embodiment, this may include runningan e-mail client program, accessing a web-based e-mail page, opening asubscription e-mail account, or the like.

In the present embodiment, the user selects one of many functions thatare available on e-mail. In some embodiments, the e-mail has an in-boxand an out-box. In a preferred embodiment, the user opens or enters thein-box, step 805. In particular, the user positions a cursor over anicon and clicks on the icon. The icon opens the in-box. Alternatively,the user uses a “hot key” to open the in-box. Other techniques can alsobe used to open the in-box.

Once the in-box is opened. The user typically views the pending e-mails.In most embodiments, the user views (step 807) lines of e-mails thathave been sent to the user e-mail address. The lines of e-mail containboth legitimate e-mail messages from friends, family, and business.Other e-mail messages include unsolicited advertisements, junk mail, andthe like, which are called SPAM. The user opens desired e-mail messagesand disposes of them. For example, the user can delete the desirede-mail messages, archive the messages, forward the messages, reply tothe messages, or perform other functions. In a preferred embodiment, theuser also opens the SPAM e-mail message (step 809).

Here, the user can read the SPAM and determine if it is desirable tokeep the SPAM or permanently remove it. In a typical household, the userfinds that the SPAM is an adult Web Site, a get-rich-quick scheme, orthe like. Next, the user, or recipient “removes” the SPAM (step 811).Depending upon the embodiment, the SPAM can be removed by way of avariety of ways. The process ends at step 813, which is STOP. Processingby the SPAM policing server will be described below.

In a specific embodiment, the present invention provides a process forremoving SPAM, as shown by the flow diagram 900 of FIG. 9. The processbegins with start, step 915. After the user views the SPAM message, theuser positions a cursor in from of an icon 917, which can be a SPAM iconor the like such as the ones described herein, but can be others. Theuser clicks onto the icon (step 919), which begins a process to removethe SPAM, remove the user's name from an e-mail distribution list,reports the SPAM to a SPAM policing server, as well as perform otherfunctions. In particular, the process sends (step 921) an e-mail messageto the spammer or distributor with a “remove” request. The e-mailmessage is transmitted (step 923) to the spammer via the wide areanetwork of computers or Internet. By way of the present process, theuser can click onto an icon to remove the SPAM, to send a remove replyto the sender to permanently remove the name of the user from a junkmail e-mail distribution list, and to send the SPAM to a SPAM policingserver.

The spammer or sender receives the remove reply message (step 929) viathe wide area network of computers or Internet. The sender generallyreceives such remove reply via e-mail message or other technique. Thesender then removes (step 930) the name of the user from the e-maildistribution list or the like from memory of a server, for example. Thisoccurs manually or automatically according to a specific process. Oncethe user name is removed, an acknowledgment or confirmation message(step 933) can be sent to the user by way of e-mail. The e-mail messagetraverses through the wide area network of computers or Internet andends up in the users e-mail box. The present process then stops, step935. Processing by the SPAM policing server will be described below.

The present methods can be implemented in computer codes, where thecodes can be separated or combined with others. Additionally the methodscan be in the form of computer software and/or hardware. The softwarecan be separated or combined. Additionally, the software can be combinedwith hardware, which can be combined or separated. As merely an example,the present invention can use, for example, computer code in the form ofmacros from an e-mail program such as GroupWise, for example. The macroscan be shown below.

Application (A1; “WPOffice”; Default; “US”) ItemReply (ReplyTo: Sender!;IncludeText: No!) FocusSet (Place: Subject!) DeleteWordRight ( ) Type(Text: “REMOVE”) ItemSend ( ) ItemDeleteOpenItem ( )

The codes shown above are merely examples and should not limit the scopeof the claims herein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognizeother variations, modifications, and alternatives.

In another embodiment of the present invention, the computer code isalso in the form of macros from an e-mail program such as GroupWise, forexample. The following macro illustrates deletion of the SPAM, sendingof a remove request to the spammer, and updating of the user's built-ine-mail filtering capability. In particular, sets the e-mail filter tofilter-out e-mail messages from the same sender. The macros can be shownbelow.

Application (A1; “WPOffice”; Default; “US”) Declare(SourceMessageID)//*  ID of read message Declare(ReplyMessageID) //*  ID of reply messageDeclare(SpammerID) //*  String of message source Declare(UserID)//*  String of user's ID Declare(ReportToID) //*  String of reportingaddress Declare(DocName) //*  Save File Name truncatedDeclare(RuleMessage) //*  Rule message Declare(RuleSubject) //*  RuleSubject Declare(RuleName) //*  Rule name Declare(RuleMessageText)//*  Rule filters text in message Declare(ReplySubject) //*  RuleSubject ReportToID:=“SPAM policing server   //*  report to SPAM policingserver UserID:=“SYP” //*  for test purposes //*  RuleName:=“spamfilter”//*  test RuleMessageText:=“spam” //*  test RuleSubject:=“ - REMOVE”//*  Rule reply subject line RuleMessage:=“Sender has previouslyrequested removal from your e-mail distribution list. You have nothonored that request and thus are in violation of    U.S.C.     , aswell as other Federal Regulations. You are subject to $500 fine for thisviolation, and you are being reported to Federal and State Authorities.”//*  Message for rule filter ReplySubject:=“ - REMOVE” ItemRead ( )//*  Open message in in-box SourceMessageID:=ItemMessageIDFromView ( )//*  Set Source ID SpammerID:= ItemGetText(SourceMessageID;From!)//*  Source of message RuleName:=SubStr(SpammerID;1;6) //*  usetruncated sender name as the rule name ItemReply (ReplyTo: Sender!;IncludeText: No!) //*  Reply to messageReplyMessageID:=ItemMessageIDFromView ( ) //*  Set Reply IDTextSetSubject(ReplySubject;True) //*  Generate removal request e-mailsubject line ItemSend( ) //*  Sends the reply e-mailItemArchive(SourceMessageID) //*  Save a copy of the spamItemDeleteOpenItem( )   //* Delete the spam! //*  Next we set a new rulein response to the SpammerIDRuleCreate(;RuleName;NewItem!;Inbox!;No!;Yes!;No!;No!;No!;;;;;RuleMessageText;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;) //*  Creates new ruleRuleAddActionArchive(;RuleName)RuleAddActionReply(;RuleName;ToSender!;ReportToID;;RuleSubject;;RuleMessage;UserID;) //*  Rule creates automatic reply e-mail//*  RuleAddActionArchive(;RuleName) //*  if archival desiredRuleAddActionEmptyItem(;RuleName) //*  Rule deletes repeat spam

The codes shown above are merely examples and should not limit the scopeof the claims herein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognizeother variations, modifications, and alternatives.

IV. Reporting Embodiments

FIG. 10 illustrates a simplified reporting embodiment of the presentinvention. FIG. 10 illustrates a recipient at computer system 1000, asender 1010 of unwanted e-mail, a sender ISP 1020 and a recipient ISP1030. Recipient ISP 1030 includes a mail server 1040 and a log 1050,computer system 1000 includes a mail client 1060 and a log 1070, and ISP1020 includes a log 1080.

Sender 1010 is typically coupled to ISP 1020 by any typical networkconnection such as a dial-up connection, dedicated ISDN line, cableconnection, satellite link and other wireless links, and the like.Computer system 1000 is also coupled to recipient ISP 1030 by anyconventional network connection mentioned above, as well as othermethods that become conventional in the future. Recipient ISP 1030 iscoupled to ISP 1020 by the Internet, typically through a number ofintermediary machines.

ISP 1020 and recipient ISP 1030 are typically companies that holdthemselves out as Internet service providers (ISPs). However it shouldbe understood that ISP 1020 and recipient ISP 1030 refer to anycomputers that provide e-mail services to senders or recipients. Forexample, subscription service providers such as America On-Line (AOL),Prodigy, Microsoft Network (MSN), and the like are considered ISP withinthe scope of embodiments of the present invention.

Typically, a recipient at computer system 1000 receives an unwantede-mail message using mail client 1060. Mail client 1060 receives thise-mail message from mail server 1040 resident on recipient ISP 1030.Recipient ISP 1030 receives the e-mail message originated from ISP 1020and sender 1010 through well known methods.

Using the above described embodiment of the present invention, inresponse to the unwanted e-mail message, the recipient requests removalfrom the e-mail mailing list with a single user input, such as a clickof an icon, by voice command, and the like. In response to the request,the present embodiment logs the e-mail message and the removal request.In some embodiments of the present invention, the log may store and/orarchive the entire message, the e-mail address of the sender, a portionof the message, the date, and the like. In alternative embodiments ofthe present invention, other distinguishing features of the unwantede-mail can also be logged, such as the address of ISP 1020, and thelike.

The date when the user requests removal is also typically logged,although not necessary since the junk e-mail message is already logged.In the present embodiment, logging information is maintained in log 1070(a database) in computer system 1000 alternatively in separate fileswithin a particular directory, and the like.

When subsequent e-mail messages are “Removed” using embodiments of thepresent messages, these e-mail messages are compared to previous e-mailmessages stored in log 1070. For example, comparison can be on the basisof sender name, e-mail address, telephone number, mail address, and thelike. If a match is found, meaning sender 1010 has failed to respect therecipient's previous request to be removed from the senders e-mail list,several different courses of action may be taken.

One action includes notifying the recipient at computer system 1000 ofthe violation. In such a situation, log 1070 would provide evidence thatthe recipient previously requested removal from the e-mail mailing list,but was still sent another e-mail. With such evidence, the recipient cancontact ISP 1020, for example, to notify ISP 1020 that sender 1010failed to comply with the recipient's request. ISP 1020 may thenterminate sender's 1010 account, or request that sender 1010 complieswith requests for removal as a condition of continued service. Typicallythe relevant portion of log 1070 may be attached to the e-mail.

Another action includes automatically notifying ISP 1020 of sender's1010 failure to comply with the recipient's request, as described above,using e-mail filters. Such a notification is typically through e-mail. Abenefit to this action is that recipient need not perform any specialaction besides selecting the one-button “removal” embodiment of thepresent invention. If sender 1010 is deliberately ignoring recipient'srequests, ISP 1020 is immediately made aware of this action by,presumably, the large number of reply e-mail messages from recipients.ISP's 1020 incentive to take action, for example, suspending sender's1010 account, and the like includes being labeled as a junk e-mail ISP.

In yet another embodiment, the notification goes to a governmentauthority or a SPAM policing server. This SPAM policing server keepslogs and keeps track of each notification. When a spammer or a senderviolates a rule that has been set-up, the SPAM policing server providesan additional notification to the sender. In some embodiments, the SPAMpolicing server also sends information out to governmental authoritiesfor enforcement. In still further embodiments, the SPAM policing serversends out information to the ISP 1020 to terminate the sender's account.Still further, the SPAM policing server may utilize software tools thatdisable ISP 1020 or the spammer's ability to send e-mail messages.Depending upon the embodiment, one or more of the above may take place.

In one embodiment, notification of SPAM to the SPAM policing server mayoccur when the first SPAM is sent, not necessarily when SPAM from thesame source, or the like is detected. In such an embodiment, earliernotice of SPAM may be possible.

In one embodiment, e-mail filtering tools can be included in the presentinvention to filter-out e-mail messages from junk e-mail ISPs. If it isdetermined that a threshold number (even one) of e-mail messages arefrom a particular ISP, and/or particular ISP's are not taking action inresponse to repeated “removal” requests by their senders, in oneembodiment, the user may be prompted to place a particular ISP on afilter-out list, as illustrated above. In such a situation, futuree-mails from that ISP will be automatically filtered out of arecipient's in-box. Alternatively, placement of a particular ISP on afilter-out list may occur automatically if the threshold number isexceeded. As an enhancement, it is contemplated that such subsequente-mail messages are automatically replied to also with “remove”requests, and the like. The subsequent e-mail messages and “remove”requests are typically also logged for evidentiary purposes.

In one embodiment of the present invention, when a threshold number ofe-mail messages from a junk e-mail sender or ISP are received, despitethe “removal” request, this information is forwarded to a central junke-mail database server (possibly the same as the SPAM policing server).The information automatically sent may include the relevant portionsfrom log 1070. Because it is envisioned that there is wide acceptanceand use of embodiments of the present invention, it is contemplated thatthe database server would serve as a central clearing house of junke-mail data. For example, which senders of junk e-mail are the mostprolific or ignore the “Remove” requests, which ISPs provide havens forjunk e-mail senders, which ISPs do not stop junk e-mail senders, and thelike. Such a database can provide valuable information to ISPs, local,state and federal law enforcement authorities, “netizens”, and the like.The database server may hosted by an organization, a service providersuch as AOL, Hotmail, Earthlink, Bright Light Technologies, and thelike.

In one embodiment of the present invention, the SPAM policing serverdetermines data files that can be used in conjunction with e-mail filtertools, as illustrated above. In one embodiment, end-users may downloadupdated data files via the Internet, for example, and in anotherembodiment, the SPAM policing server may periodically send updated datafiles for the filtering software to subscribers or users. Such filteringtools may be an integral part of the e-mail program, as in the case ofGroupWise and Outlook, alternatively, the filtering tools may also workin conjunction with such programs. Embodiments of the filtering toolsmay also be applied to web-based and subscription-base e-mail systems.

In another embodiment of the present invention, it is contemplated thatalthough the SPAM policing server maintains a permanent record of junke-mail senders, and the like, the data files for the e-mail filters aredrawn from a particular time window. For example, spammer may beidentified in the data files for the most recent three months, for themost recent four weeks, and the like. Further, some junk e-mail sendersmay be seasonal, thus filtering data files will include such seasonale-mail senders during particular times of the year. Such an embodimentprevents the filtering data files and e-mail filtering software fromgetting too large and unwieldy. Because some junk e-mail senders andISPs are “fly-by-night” organizations, the time window where some junke-mail is sent is limited to reduce “stale” spammers.

In one embodiment, when a threshold number of reports regarding the sameSPAM, spammer, or the like are received by the SPAM policing server,only then will the SPAM, spammer, or the like be transferred to thefilter-out data file. A threshold may be determined by number ofreports, geographic area of such reports, and the like. Such anembodiment would reduce the chance of a small group of disgruntlede-mail recipients to brand legitimate e-mail messages as SPAM

In another embodiment of the present invention, data files for e-mailfilters may be based upon frequency of complaints from e-mailrecipients, preferably based upon the log comparing techniques describedabove. For example the top 100/500/1000 junk e-mail senders or ISPs canbe identified in the data files and filtered out by e-mail recipients.In other embodiments of the present invention, combinations of the abovetechniques can be used to determine what junk e-mail senders, and thelike should be filtered-out. In general, when implemented world wide, itis contemplated that database server identifies junk e-mail senders andISPs that do not adhere to etiquette of the Internet, and to local,state, and federal laws.

An additional action includes automatically notifying ISP 1030 ofsender's 1010 failure to comply with the recipient's request along witha relevant portion of log 1070. If ISP 1030 determines there is apattern of non-compliance from certain ISPs or e-mail senders, ISP 1030may approach governmental authorities with such information, post suchinformation on their web site, or send such information to a “clearinghouse” of such information, as described above. In the latter two cases,ISPs or e-mail senders' may become “persona non grata” (blacklisted) onthe Internet and/or e-mail from these sources are filtered-out byrecipients. An example of one such “clearing house” of informationrelated to junk e-mail, or unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE) is foundat the following web site: http://www.cauce.org/

FIG. 11 illustrates a flow diagram of an embodiment of the presentinvention. The description of FIG. 11 incorporates references found inFIG. 10, but should not be limiting. Initially a unwanted e-mail messageis received by a recipient on computer system 1000, step 1100. Therecipient then utilizes the above described embodiment of the presentinvention to efficiently request removal from the e-mail mailing list,step 1110. Next, characteristic features of the e-mail message, such asthe header information, the senders name, address, etc, the subjectline, and the like are stored in log 1070, step 1120. The date forrequest for removal, and/or the reply message is also stored in log1070, step 1130.

Subsequently log 1070 is searched for previous instances of the samee-mail message, the same sender, same header information, and the like,step 1140. If there is a match in log 1070, the recipient is notified,step 1150. In addition, or alternatively as disclosed above, an e-mailmessage is sent to ISP 1020 detailing how sender 1010 has ignored therecipient's previous requests, step 1160. In addition, or alternativelyas disclosed above, an e-mail message is also sent to ISP 1030 withsimilar information, step 1170.

In one aspect, the present embodiment is also useful where sender 1010is violating ISP's 1020 terms of use conditions. For example, ISP 1020may not realize sender 1010 is sending out unwanted e-mail, in violationof the ISP's terms of service and use, until an e-mail is sent to ISP1020 notifying them that sender 1020 has not been honoring the “remove”request.

The present embodiment is also useful where there is “hijacking” of anISP address. As is known in the industry, “hijacking” or “spoofing”occurs when senders 1010 use an ISP's address as a source of theunwanted e-mail messages, although the ISP is not senders 1010 true ISP.In such a case, typically when the unwanted e-mail message isreplied-to, the reply e-mail will bounce because the sender is not atthe ISP's address. Thus, in the present embodiment, when an ISP beginreceiving messages indicating that sender 1010 has not heededrecipients' requests for removal, the ISP is then on notice of theaddress hijacking or spoofing. As a result, the ISP will typicallydetermine the true ISP or the sender in order to protect their on-linereputation.

In other embodiments of the present invention, the reply-to address ofe-mail message is not used, but instead the “true” address is used. Inthe situation where there is a high degree of “hijacking” or “spoofing”occurring, embodiments of the present invention can be implemented toautomatically trace the true ISP address of the junk e-mail sender basedupon the e-mail header information.

Although the above invention has been described using a specificsequence of steps. It would be recognized that other variations canexist. For example, the sequence of steps can be changed in order.Additionally, a step in the sequence of steps can be removed. Forexample, as described above, reporting of SPAM may occur the first “biteof the SPAM apple,” not only when the spammer takes the second “bite ofthe SPAM apple.”

If, as is expected, world wide usage of the inventions disclosed in thisapplication occurs, hundreds of millions of users will be able toquickly, and easily identify and report occurrences of SPAM being sentwith a single click of a button. In an alternative embodiment, a reducednumber of users will have the ability to directly report to the SPAMservers. In such embodiments, a sampling of SPAM messages may be taken,regional SPAM policing servers may be set-up, particular power-users maybe selected, and the like, to reduce the SPAM reporting data load.

In a timely manner, a SPAM policing server can then receive the SPAMnotice, process the SPAM, update the filter-out data files, and updatee-mail filters almost immediately. Because of the timeliness of the SPAMdetection turn-around time, it is expected that there is less of anincentive for spammers to continue their spamming.

Alternatively, steps in the sequence can be combined. Furthermore, anadditional step or steps can be inserted. These and other combinationswill be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art.

In light of the disclosed embodiments, enhancements to the presentinvention include additional icons within an e-mail program can beprovided to reply in other ways to e-mail messages in general. Forexample, in office environments, commonly meetings are scheduled bye-mail. Such e-mail messages often request recipients of the message toreply to the message or to send an e-mail message to a third party sothere can be a head count for seating, purposes, for providing thecorrect amount of refreshments, for printing the enough meetingmaterials, and the like. Such e-mail messages require the user toperform time consuming tasks such as determining who a reply e-mailmessage must be sent to, typing in a message, calling a person bytelephone, and the like. In this example, a standardized method forreplying to such meeting invitations can be accomplished by providing anconfirm icon, on the users' e-mail system. In such an embodiment, whenthe user sees such a request, by simply clicking upon the confirm icon,the user confirms their attendance.

While the above is a full description of the specific embodiments,various modifications, alternative constructions and equivalents may beused. For example, the above techniques for removal may be appliedtowards e-mail server programs such as Groupwise, Outlook, and the like;web-based e-mail services such as HotMail, Yahoo!, Excite, and the like;ISP providers such as Earthlink GeoCities, and the like; subscriptionservices such as AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and the like. Further, thetechniques for filtering may be applied to the e-mail services describedabove, in addition to SPAM filtering software, such as provided byBright Light Technologies, and others. Therefore, the above descriptionand illustrations should not be taken as limiting the scope of thepresent invention which is defined by the appended claims.

1. A computer implemented method performed by a computer systemincluding a processor and a memory programmed to perform the methodcomprising: receiving, by the computer system, an indication that asender that had previously initiated transmission of a first unwantedelectronic communication to a first recipient has subsequently initiatedtransmission of a second unwanted electronic communication to the firstrecipient, despite a request initiated by the first recipient, after thefirst unwanted electronic communication was received by the firstrecipient, that the sender refrain from initiating further unwantedelectronic communications to the first recipient, under direction of theprocessor; updating, by the computer system, an unwanted electroniccommunication list in the memory to include reference to the secondunwanted electronic communication under direction of the processor inresponse to the indication; receiving, by the computer system, thesecond unwanted electronic communication destined to a second recipient,under direction of the processor; determining, by the computer system,that the second unwanted electronic communication should be inhibited,under direction the processor, in response to the unwanted electroniccommunication list and in response to the second unwanted electroniccommunication; and inhibiting sending, by the computer system, thesecond unwanted electronic communication to the second recipient when itis determined that the second unwanted electronic communication shouldbe inhibited, under direction of the processor.
 2. The computerimplemented method of claim 1 wherein the first unwanted electroniccommunication comprises an e-mail message.
 3. The computer implementedmethod of claim 1 wherein first data is associated with a property ofthe first unwanted electronic communication; wherein the first data isassociated with a property of the second unwanted electroniccommunication; and wherein the property is selected from a groupconsisting of: an e-mail SUBJECT property, an e-mail FROM property, anaddress associated with the sender, an e-mail message, headerinformation.
 4. The computer implemented method of claim 1 whereininhibiting sending the second unwanted electronic communication to thesecond recipient comprises removing, by the computer system, the secondunwanted electronic communication from an electronic mail inboxassociated with the second recipient, under direction of the processor.5. The computer implemented method of claim 1 further comprisingsending, by the computer system, the indication to a server associatedwith a third-party, wherein the third-party is selected from a groupconsisting of: an ISP associated with the sender, a United States Stateauthority, a United States Federal authority, an unwanted electroniccommunication clearing house.
 6. The computer implemented method ofclaim 1 wherein the unwanted electronic communication list comprises afilter-out list.
 7. The computer implemented method of claim 1 whereinthe request initiated by the first recipient comprises a request by ahuman recipient.
 8. A computer system comprising: a memory configured tostore an unwanted electronic communication list; and a processor coupledto the memory, wherein the processor is configured to receive indicationthat a sender that had previously initiated transmission of a firstunwanted electronic communication to a first recipient has subsequentlyinitiated transmission of a second unwanted electronic communication tothe first recipient, despite a request initiated by the first recipient,after the first unwanted electronic communication was received by thefirst recipient, that the sender refrain from initiating furtherunwanted electronic communications to the first recipient, wherein theprocessor is configured to update the unwanted electronic communicationlist to include reference to the second unwanted electroniccommunication in response to the indication, wherein the processor isconfigured to receive the second unwanted electronic communicationdestined to a second recipient, wherein the processor is configured todetermine that the second unwanted electronic communication should beinhibited in response to the unwanted electronic communication list thatwas updated and in response to the second unwanted electroniccommunication, and wherein the processor is configured to inhibitsending the second unwanted electronic communication to the secondrecipient when it is determined that the second unwanted electroniccommunication should be inhibited; and wherein the memory is alsoconfigured to store the unwanted electronic communication list that isupdated.
 9. The computer system of claim 8 wherein the first unwantedelectronic communication comprises an e-mail message; and wherein theprocessor is configured to provide e-mail messages to the firstrecipient and to the second recipient.
 10. The computer system of claim8 wherein first data is associated with a property of the first unwantedelectronic communication; wherein the first data is associated with theproperty of the second unwanted electronic communication; and whereinthe property is selected from a group consisting of: an e-mail SUBJECTproperty, an e-mail FROM property, an address associated with thesender, an e-mail message, header information.
 11. The computer systemof claim 8 wherein the processor is configured to remove the secondunwanted electronic communication from an electronic mail inboxassociated with the second recipient.
 12. The computer system of claim 8wherein the processor is configured to send the indication to a serverassociated with a third-party, wherein the third-party is selected froma group consisting of: an ISP associated with the sender, a UnitedStates State authority, a United States Federal authority, a unwantedelectronic communication clearing house.
 13. The computer system ofclaim 8 wherein the unwanted electronic communication list comprises afilter-out list.
 14. The computer system of claim 8 wherein the requestinitiated by the first recipient comprises a request by a humanrecipient.
 15. A computer program product comprising a computer systemincluding a processor, wherein the computer system executes computercode resident on a tangible media, the computer program productcomprising: code configured to direct the processor to receiveindication that a sender who had previously initiated transmission of afirst unwanted electronic communication to a first recipient hassubsequently initiated transmission of a second unwanted electroniccommunication to the first recipient, despite a request initiated by thefirst recipient that the sender refrain from initiating further unwantedelectronic communications to the first recipient, after the firstunwanted electronic communication was received by the first recipient;code configured to direct the processor to update an unwanted electroniccommunication list to include reference to the second unwantedelectronic communication in response to the indication; code configuredto direct the processor to receive the second unwanted electroniccommunication destined to a second recipient; code configured to directthe processor to determine that the second unwanted electroniccommunication should be inhibited in response to the unwanted electroniccommunication list that was updated and in response to the secondunwanted electronic communication; and code configured to direct theprocessor to inhibit sending the second unwanted electroniccommunication to the second recipient when it is determined that thesecond unwanted electronic communication should be inhibited.
 16. Thecomputer program product of claim 15 wherein the first unwantedelectronic communication comprises an e-mail message; and wherein theprocessor is configured to provide e-mail messages to the firstrecipient and to the second recipient.
 17. The computer program productof claim 15 wherein first data is associated with a property of thefirst unwanted electronic communication; wherein the first data isassociated with the property of the second unwanted electroniccommunication; and wherein the property is selected from a groupconsisting of: an e-mail SUBJECT property, an e-mail FROM property, anaddress associated with the sender, an e-mail message, headerinformation.
 18. The computer program product of claim 15 furthercomprising code configured to direct the processor to remove the secondunwanted electronic communication from an electronic mail inboxassociated with the second recipient.
 19. The computer program productof claim 15 further comprising code configured to direct the processorto send the indication to a server associated with a third-party,wherein the third-party is selected from a group consisting of: an ISPassociated with the sender, a United States State authority, a UnitedStates Federal authority, a unwanted electronic communication clearinghouse.
 20. The computer program product of claim 15 wherein the unwantedelectronic communication list comprises a filter-out list.